HamComm 3.0 "registration" by N9ZLE: a slap in my face!
W.F.Schroeder
Hello netlanders,
while looking around on the web i came to this very interesting place:
http://www.concentric.net/~n9zle/hc.html
where Bruce C. Raisley, N9ZLE, offers HamComm interfaces.
Near the end of this web page you can find the following line:
"Register (fix) program for HamComm 3.0 only Not a true registration!"
Here you can download a small program REGHC which
PATCHES THE SHAREWARE VERSION OF HAMCOMM 3.0 !!
If you run the program it displays the following message:
--
This program removes the Unreg screen when exiting
the HamComm program. It does not register it.
debugger created by... N9ZLE
The dirty deed has been done...............!
--
Being the author of the HamComm software i have to say
that i am not amused at all. Removing the reminder message
from the shareware program will definitely reduce the number
of registrations.
It seems Mr Raisley has forgotten that he can only sell
interfaces because of the countless hours of work me and other
shareware authors have invested to create affordable programs.
--
I just had to learn that the same has been done to HamComm 3.1
by a hacker group (*not* by N9ZLE, maybe it was too difficult).
As a consequence of these unpleasant events i have decided that
there will be
NO SHAREWARWE VERSION AFTER HAMCOMM 3.1
Any new features will only be available in the registered program.
73 de Django
DL5YEC
Author of HamComm
Phil Perkins
schroe...@sni.de (W.F.Schroeder) wrote:
>http://www.concentric.net/~n9zle/hc.html
>--
I'm not surprised at this! And this from the most wonderful and honest
and law abiding Country in the world - truly amazing. Do not worry, we
will continue to support shareware writers like yourself by making
HamComm3.1 available for download on our site
http://www.pervisell.com/ham
Good luck with hacking the hackers
Phil Perkins
====================================================================================
Phil Perkins = ph...@pervisell.com Fax +44 1494 448236
Pervisell Ltd 8 Temple End HIGH WYCOMBE Bucks HP13 5DR Great Britain
====================================================================================
Don Lafontaine
On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:21:23 GMT, schroe...@sni.de (W.F.Schroeder)
wrote:
>Being the author of the HamComm software i have to say
>that i am not amused at all. Removing the reminder message
>from the shareware program will definitely reduce the number
>of registrations.
>
>It seems Mr Raisley has forgotten that he can only sell
>interfaces because of the countless hours of work me and other
>shareware authors have invested to create affordable programs.
>
>--
>
>I just had to learn that the same has been done to HamComm 3.1
>by a hacker group (*not* by N9ZLE, maybe it was too difficult).
>
>As a consequence of these unpleasant events i have decided that
>there will be
> NO SHAREWARWE VERSION AFTER HAMCOMM 3.1
>
>Any new features will only be available in the registered program.
I support this move. Being a programmer myself, I would do the same.
One person ruins it for all the others. hmmm wonder if he has an
email address??...
73 de VE2UFO
Don Lafontaine
Chuck Harrington
W.F.Schroeder wrote:
>
> Hello netlanders,
> while looking around on the web i came to this very interesting place:
>
> http://www.concentric.net/~n9zle/hc.html
>
> where Bruce C. Raisley, N9ZLE, offers HamComm interfaces.
> Near the end of this web page you can find the following line:
>
> "Register (fix) program for HamComm 3.0 only Not a true registration!"
>
> Here you can download a small program REGHC which
>
> PATCHES THE SHAREWARE VERSION OF HAMCOMM 3.0 !!
>
> If you run the program it displays the following message:
>
> --
> This program removes the Unreg screen when exiting
> the HamComm program. It does not register it.
> debugger created by... N9ZLE
> The dirty deed has been done...............!
> --
>
> that i am not amused at all. Removing the reminder message
> from the shareware program will definitely reduce the number
> of registrations.
>
> It seems Mr Raisley has forgotten that he can only sell
> interfaces because of the countless hours of work me and other
> shareware authors have invested to create affordable programs.
>
DITTO!! I couldn't agree with you more! With major venders like AEA
going out of business, where would the amateur radio community be
without their shareware?!
Chuck Harrington, Author of Visual PacketPeT!
Jim Kehler
lafo...@cn.ca (Don Lafontaine) wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:21:23 GMT, schroe...@sni.de (W.F.Schroeder)
>wrote:
>>Being the author of the HamComm software i have to say
>>that i am not amused at all. Removing the reminder message
>>from the shareware program will definitely reduce the number
>>of registrations.
>>
>>It seems Mr Raisley has forgotten that he can only sell
>>interfaces because of the countless hours of work me and other
>>shareware authors have invested to create affordable programs.
>>
>>--
>>
>>I just had to learn that the same has been done to HamComm 3.1
>>by a hacker group (*not* by N9ZLE, maybe it was too difficult).
>>
>>As a consequence of these unpleasant events i have decided that
>>there will be
>> NO SHAREWARWE VERSION AFTER HAMCOMM 3.1
>>
>>Any new features will only be available in the registered program.
>I support this move. Being a programmer myself, I would do the same.
>One person ruins it for all the others. hmmm wonder if he has an
>email address??...
>73 de VE2UFO
>Don Lafontaine
Yes, Don, N9ZLE has an email address. He has a web page also. But before you
jump off the deep end, maybe you should do some homework. I bought an interface
from N9ZLE a few months ago, and it included a diskette with Hamcom 3.0 and
another shareware program. The shareware notice had NOT been removed from the
version I received.
As a programmer you should know that there always have been and always will be
people who don't pay for software, regardless of if it's 'shareware' or
'buyware' or whatever. And unfortunatly there will always be software that
people DO pay for that isn't worth the price of the diskettes it came on. Hence
the term 'shelfware'.
I don't know N9ZLE personally, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with what I
got from him, software or hardware wise. And I would like to add his service
was excellent.
73, Jim KH2D
James Lee Tabor
Hi,
This subject is really very simple.
Most people wouldn't think of going into a store, taking software
off the shelf and leaving the store without paying for it. That
is stealing, right?
When you take something without permission, or without paying
for it your stealing - therefore you are a thief. Is this not
correct?
Why is it ok to steal from the software author, when you wouldn't
think of stealing from a merchant?
Some will say, I bought the software - I'll do what I want with it.
Sorry, this is NOT the case. You made an agreement before you began
using the product.
When you "buy software" there is most always a license statement,
or license agreement, by which you must agree to abide before
proceeding to "install" said software. This statement gives you
the right to "use" the software, not own the software.
(This is sort of like the difference between renting and buying
a home...)
You gave your word, and agreed to these terms before you began
using the software. You most always have the option to return
the product if you can't agree to the terms.
Here's a web site with some interesting facts on the subject.
(this site may be gone now?)
http://www.bsa.org/piracy/piracy.html
Please don't take food from the table of these hard working
individuals. Instead, help educate others. Software prices
will vary with supply and demand. More sales means lower prices
along with new versions.
Most software pirates haven't thought through what they are doing.
Thank you very much for your time and thanks also for your help.
73,
Jim - KU5S
Dave Burr
Jim:
I hope that your attempt to educate turns even a few people around. Hams
have to be the worst software thieves in existence. All you ever hear is
stuff like "Oh, you like that program? Why don't you send me a copy?"
and the deal is done. I deeply resent that because I pay out the rear
end for their dishonesty when I walk into a software store and buy
product.
The bottom line is that it appears that a large number of hams are
dishonest, and they steal software simply because they can get away with
it. It's sad and surprising because lots of these people seem otherwise
fairly normal.
Good luck!
Dave K9XK
Tom McGee
>The bottom line is that it appears that a large number of hams are
>dishonest, and they steal software simply because they can get away with
>it. It's sad and surprising because lots of these people seem otherwise
>fairly normal.
Hams aren't any different from the rest of the population, Dave. Most of us
have been burned too many times by products that do not work as advertised.
In the case of software, I am not aware of any commercial software that you
can return for a refund after you try it. I don't buy software anymore
without trying it first. If this means a bootleg copy, then so be it. I
spent thousands of dollars on garbage software before wising up.
I do pay for software that does the job I need to do.
-73
Dave Burr
Tom McGee wrote:
>
> Hams aren't any different from the rest of the population, Dave. Most of us
> have been burned too many times by products that do not work as advertised.
> In the case of software, I am not aware of any commercial software that you
> can return for a refund after you try it. I don't buy software anymore
> without trying it first. If this means a bootleg copy, then so be it. I
> spent thousands of dollars on garbage software before wising up.
>
> I do pay for software that does the job I need to do.
>
> -73
Tom:
While I abhor software theft, I do think that your point about bad
product is valid. Some software is trash and retailers and publishers
need to make trials available.
If you do use a bootleg copy to evaluate it and then either get rid of
it or buy it, you are in effect establishing a policy that the
publishers OUGHT to offer. I have mixed feelings about this kind of
"theft". It seems that you can make an moral and rational argument for
it. (not like the bozos that say that it's too expensive and that the
publishers are "ripping off" the poor public and ought to be penalized,
so they steal product)
However, if in fact you do adhere strictly to this procedure, you are in
the minority. For every one of you there is probably 1,000 who never
walk down to the store and plunk their money down.......but continue to
use the program.
This is a huge problem. I know huge commercial institutions who own
approximately one copy of MS Windows for hundreds of PCs. And all you
have to do is listen on the ham bands to see that hams are really bad
about it.
Dave
K9XK
Rob Lilley
Recently I did the decent thing - sent the programmer his requested
registration fee of $20.00 for a shareware program I really liked. In
turn for registering the software, I was to get a 'code' emailed to me to
turn of the 'nag' greeting when the software ran. Several months have
gone by with no email. I sent the money because it was a good program
more than to get the nag turned off. However, developers do have to
offer some support as part of doing business. This is the Second Time
a shareware developer has failed to acknowledge a registration this way.
I'm beginning to think the registration (aside from the money) does not
mean anything. I am sorry developers get ripped off by people who
use their apps without paying for them - but trust works both ways.
RL
Dave Burr
Rob Lilley wrote:
>
> Recently I did the decent thing - sent the programmer his requested
> registration fee of $20.00 for a shareware program I really liked. In
> turn for registering the software, I was to get a 'code' emailed to me to
> turn of the 'nag' greeting when the software ran. Several months have
> gone by with no email. I sent the money because it was a good program
> more than to get the nag turned off. However, developers do have to
> offer some support as part of doing business. This is the Second Time
> a shareware developer has failed to acknowledge a registration this way.
> I'm beginning to think the registration (aside from the money) does not
> mean anything. I am sorry developers get ripped off by people who
> use their apps without paying for them - but trust works both ways.
> RL
>
That is a heck of a story, and the one good thing about the
communication "age" is that we can be vocal about rip-off artists. I
really hate to hear this, because shareware is extremely abused, and
what you did was rare. I have thought about writing some shareware as a
hobby, but if these bad eggs are ruining it for honest publishers, I
might think twice.
Dave
K9XK
Robert Langston
>Hi,
>73,
>Jim - KU5S
I've got a problem, why do they require you to purchase beer, when we
only rent it...How many times do you purchase an artist's (programmer)
program package, take it home install it and find out it's a piece of
shit. Try returning it, oh you opened the box...Well you're software
overwrote the drivers installed in the windows directory for my other
program..The artist used the same filename with a dll
extension....Will the author come out to my house and fix the agony
that will take 5 hours to reinstall, or worseoff, the other program
has some obscure write protection in place which prevents
re-installing by the already licensed user...Programmers have fucked
me in this way more times that I can count. Get a life, stop your
bitching and write about something ham related the next time you send
a message to *.newsgroups...and have a nice day.........n2cjj@ibm.net
n2...@ibm.net
Michael P. Deignan
>If you do use a bootleg copy to evaluate it and then either get rid of
>it or buy it, you are in effect establishing a policy that the
>publishers OUGHT to offer. I have mixed feelings about this kind of
>"theft". It seems that you can make an moral and rational argument for
>it. (not like the bozos that say that it's too expensive and that the
>publishers are "ripping off" the poor public and ought to be penalized,
>so they steal product)
By this definition, I have "stolen" every piece of software that I
have bought in the past ten years.
Back in the 80's, I purchased a piece of software (don't remember
the exact name) that was advertised as being "100% dBase III compatible".
The product was about $400, which at the time was roughly half the price
of the dBase product on the market. Even the box that the software
came in (a very professional-looking product) said that the software
was "fully dBase compatible".
Well, lo-and-behold, a "readme.txt" file copied to the hard drive
during installation contained information on dBase commands that were
"not implemented". You could code them in your program, but they didn't
do anything at all. All of these commands revolved around multi-user
database access (RLOCK, FLOCK, and so on). Furthermore, the readme manual
stated that other "multiuser" features were not present (such as the
ability to SET EXCLUSIVE OFF to allow multiuser .DBF access).
Needless to say, I was quite mad, because these "non-implemented" features
means that the software is *NOT* "100% dBase III compatible". I called the
company to complain. They said "sorry, but it >is< dBase compatible, your
program will run just fine, you just can't have two people access the
same DBF file, and that isn't our problem. Oh, and since you opened the
disk pack, the software is non-returnable." A complaint with VISA yielded
nothing, since technically I received the software I ordered (even though
it didn't work as advertised.) I complaint with the CA AG's consumer fraud
division was pointless and got nowhere, nobody there understood the
issue in the slightest..
In the end, I ended up paying something like $1200 (had to go buy a copy
of dBase III after all). Since that day, I have >never< purchased a piece
of software without first obtaining a bootlegged copy of the software to
install and try out first. Is it "theft"? Technically, yes. Do I care?
Absolutely not. I'm not going to get burned again. Just as the other person
indicated, when I do try out a piece of software that I want, and find it
works as I expect, I do purchase it. If not, I get rid of it.
In most cases, I try to purchase products from companies that have a
"try before you buy" policy. A 60-day free trial is a real treat to
see if a product is really going to live up to its expectations. I am
especially suspicious of companies that do not offer such trials, and
go through great lengths to prevent you from copying their software,
since in many of these instances I suspect they have something to hide.
In many instances, "legitimate" companies that I speak to in the course
of my professional work as an author generally indicate (off the record)
that they don't mind people "bootlegging" their software to try it out.
As long as after you try it out you either purchase it, or stop using
it. Their attitude is they would rather have you try out a bootlegged
copy of their software to see how good it is rather than have you purchase
a competitor's product. Its my opinion that any company or software
author offering a professional product that they intend to stand by
should not have an anal-retentive policy towards people trying out their
product before it is purchased.
Ed Foster, in his Infoworld Gripe Line column, indicated recently that
we might see some changes to the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code -- codified
laws that govern business transactions) that will protect software purchasers
in the future (requiring businesses that sell software to actually live
up to their advertised promises).
>However, if in fact you do adhere strictly to this procedure, you are in
>the minority. For every one of you there is probably 1,000 who never
>walk down to the store and plunk their money down.......but continue to
>use the program.
Yes, this is true. However, despite what the SPA likes to paint, most of
these people wouldn't purchase the software anyway, even if they had to.
Thus, the "15 billion per month" (or whatever the ridiculous number is)
that the SPA claims is lost to "piracy" is over-inflated.
Software piracy is a legitimate problem, and companies do need to be
aware of it. However, piracy exists in every aspect of commercial goods
that can be copied: CDs, tapes, video-tapes, and other commercial products
are all copied by people and freely distributed amongst themselves.
>This is a huge problem. I know huge commercial institutions who own
>approximately one copy of MS Windows for hundreds of PCs. And all you
>have to do is listen on the ham bands to see that hams are really bad
>about it.
This is clearly behaviour that nobody can condone. However, I would say
Hams are no worse then the general population. They are just stupid
and talk about it over the radio.
MD
--
--
-- "Guns don't kill people. I kill people." -- T-shirt slogan
--
-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
Dave Burr
Although the temptation is to let your semi-literate, immature tirade
speak for itself, I believe that this is as much of an issue for hams as
most of the other postings on this group, especially given the magnitude
of the problem. Just listen to 2m and 75m. Just because a guy is trying
to raise awareness of a legitimate issue shouldn't make him a target,
especially when he is dead-on correct and only the most twisted logic
could "refute" his statements.
There is lots of bad software out there, and most of the problem is
indeed a result of the publisher's application developers taking
shortcuts. They need to be called out for this. I share your frustration
because I've had all that stuff happen to me several times.
But you appear to make an argument that it's okay to steal because you
have been dissatisfied in the past. I don't see how that reasoning
holds. Does this propensity to grab anything that's not nailed down and
run hold in other areas of your life? Steal a CD because you bought an
album earlier and didn't like it? Steal a car because you spend 20 grand
for another one and the thing was in the service bay for weeks? The
bottom line is that you steal what you can as long as you can easily get
away with it. And you're telling KU5S to "get a life"? All KU5S is
saying is that not everyone is like you and some would stop this
practice if they gave it a little thought. He seems to have a bit of
faith in his fellow amateurs, which is welcome and refreshing.
Dave
K9XK
David Rickmers
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 10:09:01 -0400, ka1...@bmugbos.org (Tom McGee)
wrote:
> Most of us
>have been burned too many times by products that do not work as advertised.
>In the case of software, I am not aware of any commercial software that you
>can return for a refund after you try it. I don't buy software anymore
>without trying it first. If this means a bootleg copy, then so be it. I
>spent thousands of dollars on garbage software before wising up.
This is the exact reason for the concept of "shareware". Try before
you buy.
dr
barryo
schroe...@sni.de (W.F.Schroeder) wrote:
:Hello netlanders,
:while looking around on the web i came to this very interesting place:
:
:http://www.concentric.net/~n9zle/hc.html
:
:where Bruce C. Raisley, N9ZLE, offers HamComm interfaces.
:Near the end of this web page you can find the following line:
:
:"Register (fix) program for HamComm 3.0 only Not a true registration!"
:
:Here you can download a small program REGHC which
:
: PATCHES THE SHAREWARE VERSION OF HAMCOMM 3.0 !!
:
:If you run the program it displays the following message:
:
:--
:This program removes the Unreg screen when exiting
:the HamComm program. It does not register it.
:debugger created by... N9ZLE
:The dirty deed has been done...............!
:--
:
:Being the author of the HamComm software i have to say
:that i am not amused at all. Removing the reminder message
:from the shareware program will definitely reduce the number
:of registrations.
:
:It seems Mr Raisley has forgotten that he can only sell
:interfaces because of the countless hours of work me and other
:shareware authors have invested to create affordable programs.
:
:--
:
:I just had to learn that the same has been done to HamComm 3.1
:by a hacker group (*not* by N9ZLE, maybe it was too difficult).
:
:As a consequence of these unpleasant events i have decided that
:there will be
: NO SHAREWARWE VERSION AFTER HAMCOMM 3.1
:
:Any new features will only be available in the registered program.
Maybe you should just learn to program better.
=====================================
When replying please remove the spaces from my email
address. They are included to fool automatic replys.
Unsolicited commercial emails are not wanted.
Unsolicited replys to my article are welcome.
Bill Sohl
n2...@ibm.net (Robert Langston) wrote:
>James Lee Tabor <ku...@wtrt.net> wrote:
>>Hi,
>>This subject is really very simple.
>>Most people wouldn't think of going into a store, taking software
>>off the shelf and leaving the store without paying for it. That
>>is stealing, right?
>>When you take something without permission, or without paying
>>for it your stealing - therefore you are a thief. Is this not
>>correct?
>>Why is it ok to steal from the software author, when you wouldn't
>>think of stealing from a merchant?
>>Some will say, I bought the software - I'll do what I want with it.
>>Sorry, this is NOT the case. You made an agreement before you began
>>using the product.
>>When you "buy software" there is most always a license statement,
>>or license agreement, by which you must agree to abide before
>>proceeding to "install" said software. This statement gives you
>>the right to "use" the software, not own the software.
What license. Such alleged licenses have yet to win in court.
I assume you are talking about shrinkwrap and/or shareware.
In the shrinkwrap, the license is NOT agreed to by anyone just
because they purchased it. In shareware, there is no license
at all...only an expectation based on honesty that users will
pay for it if they CONTINUE to use it.
As to ownership...I own all the software I have. It is not leased
anymore than the books on my shelves are leased. There has
never been any case involving over the counter software that
has established that the purchaser only has a use and not actual
ownership of the copy they bought.
>>(This is sort of like the difference between renting and buying
>>a home...)
>>You gave your word, and agreed to these terms before you began
>>using the software. You most always have the option to return
>>the product if you can't agree to the terms.
Not true for most software, especially shrinkwrap. Once its
opened you can't return it. In any case, I stand by my comments above
also as to ownership and licenses.
>>Here's a web site with some interesting facts on the subject.
>>(this site may be gone now?)
>>http://www.bsa.org/piracy/piracy.html
>>Please don't take food from the table of these hard working
>>individuals. Instead, help educate others. Software prices
>>will vary with supply and demand. More sales means lower prices
>>along with new versions.
Nothing wrong with being honest, but it works both ways too.
>>Most software pirates haven't thought through what they are doing.
This also depends on what is or isn't piracy of software.
Go to any computer show and you can buy used software at
very cheap prices. Piracy? I think not.
Now back to the regularly scheduled ham related
newsgroup subjects.
Bill Sohl (Amateur Radio Operator K2UNK)
Internet Instructor, Mount Olive (NJ) Community School
Pheezer
bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>What license. Such alleged licenses have yet to win in court.
>I assume you are talking about shrinkwrap and/or shareware.
>
>In the shrinkwrap, the license is NOT agreed to by anyone just
>because they purchased it. In shareware, there is no license
>at all...only an expectation based on honesty that users will
>pay for it if they CONTINUE to use it.
>
>As to ownership...I own all the software I have.
No, you don't. Read it, stupid.
> It is not leased anymore than the books on my shelves are leased. There has
>never been any case involving over the counter software that
>has established that the purchaser only has a use and not actual
>ownership of the copy they bought.
>
>Not true for most software, especially shrinkwrap. Once its
>opened you can't return it. In any case, I stand by my comments above
>also as to ownership and licenses.
Of course you do. You're wrong, but go ahead.
>Nothing wrong with being honest, but it works both ways too.
Honest???? You call what you do HONEST??
>This also depends on what is or isn't piracy of software.
>Go to any computer show and you can buy used software at
>very cheap prices. Piracy? I think not.
>
>Now back to the regularly scheduled ham related
>newsgroup subjects.
>
>Bill Sohl (Amateur Radio Operator K2UNK)
>Internet Instructor, Mount Olive (NJ) Community School
>
I can't believe you clowns. Here you are, defending theft. But let someone
just *think* about operating a ham radio without a license and you would be
sreaming bloody murder. By the way - you may think that the ham license with
your call on it is yours - it's not. It belongs to the government, which can
revoke its use at any time. You're a bunch of hypocrites.
Read the packages, folks. You don't own the software. If you want to whine
about it, then whine about it on the airwaves and keep the crap out of the
newsgroup.
Bill, I hope you don't instill your crap to your students. If you don't even
bother to read the shrinkwrapped notices, I really question whether you are
qualified to teach anyone anything.
Of course it's piracy. What have you got? A dictionary with some of the
definitions you don't like substitued with those you dream up???
Idiots.
Sam Cederas
do you want some cheese with that whine????
Matthew T. Jachimstal
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
tyler <ty...@cyberia.com> wrote in article
<5c002o$jfl$1...@news3.microserve.net>...
> Q: Why can't I purchace an older version of the software that maybe
wouldn't
> cost an arm and a leg? I really don't think my little sister needs
all of
> Sorry to ruin your party. I just had to get that gripe in there.
> Tyler
>
>
You probably can. Try Surplus Software. They have a web site, I can't
remember the address right now. I've gotten a PIM program from them for
shipping only, it cost me about $3.00.
Matthew
- --
| Matthew T. Jachimstal Holder of Past Knowledge N9LMW
| CS Major Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI
| email: m...@usa.net or mtja...@mtu.edu Voice: 906-487-0899
| WWW: http://netnet.net/~jachim Pager: 906-222-9880
| PGP ID: 683F741D FP: 8B 6A 03 A3 E2 5C 71 64 93 D0 22 17 0E 2B C6 AF
| Check the keyserver or finger jac...@netnet.net for PGP keys
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Encrypted Email Vastly Preferred
iQEVAwUBMuOvYgGqm95oP3QdAQFfigf/UyLtSfLbjSm1/KX7GSDWWkAfvqkGkW7Y
vyQ1mZ7vAglPEDoioHau5K7bR6C8cK8AFKrNulzL4j0ved1laIINDJNS5XLGGraP
yQwXHAvfHwr7fr7G2YdyEjfhx0eppxGX2/W/QtRrVdUO2ygz4ZcnU6VOCnz3UE1u
7QNjx9OZk8FEkCxkzVR9397jqbXJwk8srzftsU6FN0cUE8yLs2vroYgtpZgAVVO5
jBUkbn3/1t5Sg3PNYxRoXtAPrKot31+FAE+QylvgR9A/WKMgp3rACbY1es6W953G
e+ItvUx9m+zFBdRnj37v72OC5BBCzxD2MJTt/ScF7W6R8jsX+aIX6w==
=cxJu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
tyler
Just wanted to get my opinion in here somewhere. My dad recently purchased a
used computer for my little sister who is in high school. The computer didn't
have any word processing programs on it and this is what it was purchased for.
I went in search of the elusive "word for windows." Nobody carried it. I
found plenty of upgrades. I expected to pay between $80 and 160 for this
product. I finally found it. $320!!! HOLY SHIT! The computer only cost
$500!!! I finally gave in for a copy of MS works for $59. The word processor
on there works for her needs, but the way the page is displayed on the screen
is kind of a pain in the ass. It is only half the page from side to side so
as you type to the side of the page, the page shifts back and forth. Stupid.
What are my alternatives? 1. Finding someone with a copy of Word for windows
would be nice. I don't have a copy. I bought the computer used and the
program was on it already. 2. Fork out over 300 bucks for the latest,
greatest, wipes your ass when you're done new program.
Q: Why can't I purchace an older version of the software that maybe wouldn't
cost an arm and a leg? I really don't think my little sister needs all of
bells and whistles on the super duper version. I WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY
FOR THIS. (I know...how white of me) I am NOT willing to pay for all of
the bells and whistles that the latest program comes with. I don't need
them and I don't want them.
Don Lafontaine
On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 03:33:53 GMT, barryo @ fastlink.com.au (Barry
O'Grady) wrote:
>:
>:As a consequence of these unpleasant events i have decided that
>:there will be
>: NO SHAREWARWE VERSION AFTER HAMCOMM 3.1
>:
>:Any new features will only be available in the registered program.
>
>Maybe you should just learn to program better.
Heheheh, no matter HOW good you are, there's always a hacker that
can outdo you.
Please buy a clue...
Don Lafontaine VE2UFO
Don Lafontaine
>Hams aren't any different from the rest of the population, Dave. Most of us
>have been burned too many times by products that do not work as advertised.
>In the case of software, I am not aware of any commercial software that you
>can return for a refund after you try it. I don't buy software anymore
>without trying it first. If this means a bootleg copy, then so be it. I
>spent thousands of dollars on garbage software before wising up.
OK. What's wrong with asking the 'ligitimate' owner a chance to test
drive the program at his or her site to see if you like it? This
would be the ONLY legal way to do it, and it keeps you from
cluttering your disk with useless junk.
I don't buy into the 'I've been burned before' bull, although it
would be a rather cute justification for these illegal actions.
Don Lafontaine VE2UFO
Ben Williams
Pheezer wrote:
> I can't believe you clowns. Here you are, defending theft. But let someone
> just *think* about operating a ham radio without a license and you would be
> sreaming bloody murder.
Whoa. You're painting with too broad a brush, here. I'm a ham operator, extra-
class - the highest license. AA7AS. I've also passed the commercial licenses. I
do not, repeat NOT, support piracy, or the nonsense that this guy was spouting,
and I know other hams that do not. Piracy is rampant among hams, but I am not
sure that it is any less so than the general population.
> I really question whether you are qualified to teach anyone anything.
I completely agree - but unfortunately, ethics is not part of the teaching
syllabus in most edu systems - for that matter, if it's not taught in schools,
many people have not even the basic ability to reason through the issues. It
is my considered opinion that this situation is directly the fault of the
educational system, and the fault of parents, who extend the problem
of their own ignorance in these critical social areas. Obligation?
Responsibility? Not Me, cry the public, and there you have the root
of the problem. Add to that, little, if any, ability to understand the
difference between a moral and an ethical issue and you have a pretty
chaotic consumer-base.
> Of course it's piracy. What have you got? A dictionary with some of the
> definitions you don't like substitued with those you dream up???
What he probably has is more powerful than a dictionary. He's likely got a
good case of self-delusion going - and I honestly don't believe you can fix
the problem in an adult.
--
Ben Williams (ARS AA7AS)
email: bwil...@blackbelt.com
Black Belt Systems, Inc. State of the Art Image Manipulation Software
Web Pages: http://www.blackbelt.com/blackbelt/bx_top.html
FTP: ftp.blackbelt.com/corporate/blackbelt/
Information: in...@blackbelt.com
Support: sup...@blackbelt.com
Sales: sa...@blackbelt.com
Marketing: mar...@blackbelt.com
Phil M.
Dave Burr wrote:
>
> That is a heck of a story, and the one good thing about the
> communication "age" is that we can be vocal about rip-off artists. I
> really hate to hear this, because shareware is extremely abused, and
> what you did was rare. I have thought about writing some shareware as a
> hobby, but if these bad eggs are ruining it for honest publishers, I
> might think twice.
> Dave
> K9XK
The idea behind the ASP - Association of Shareware Professionals - is to
try to
put some guidelines for the shareware developer in place. If you look
for
the ASP logo in a shareware package (most brag about it), you will
usually
get a better product, since it's usually been reviewed by a panel first.
And you will usually have a lesser chance of not receiving
acknowledgement.
73,
Phil
Bryan Cowan
If you would have bought a used Mac it probably would have come with a
word processing program (I forget what Mac used before Claris) and you
would have only paid $200-$250 total for the unit, a power cord, and the
keyboard and mouse. I know Apple itself is on its last legs, but used Macs
still have a lot of life left in them. I've heard of people who still use
Mac Pluses, made around 1985-86!
Don Lafontaine
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 20:29:23 -0600, Dave Burr <dtb...@mcs.com> wrote:
>There is lots of bad software out there, and most of the problem is
>indeed a result of the publisher's application developers taking
>shortcuts. They need to be called out for this. I share your frustration
>because I've had all that stuff happen to me several times.
Here's an idea: If you want to try out... say... Windows95, and you
know where you can get a bootleg copy. Go out and buy a legitimate
copy, but don't open it. Get the bootleg, install it, and if you
like it, perfect, if not, return the new unopened package for the
refund, and destroy the bootleg. Problem solved, everyone happy.
Don Lafontaine VE2UFO
Fred
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Dave Burr wrote:
> Rob Lilley wrote:
> >
> > Recently I did the decent thing - sent the programmer his requested
> > registration fee of $20.00 for a shareware program I really liked. In
> > turn for registering the software, I was to get a 'code' emailed to me to
> > turn of the 'nag' greeting when the software ran. Several months have
> > gone by with no email. I sent the money because it was a good program
> > more than to get the nag turned off. However, developers do have to
> > offer some support as part of doing business. This is the Second Time
> > a shareware developer has failed to acknowledge a registration this way.
> > I'm beginning to think the registration (aside from the money) does not
> > mean anything. I am sorry developers get ripped off by people who
> > use their apps without paying for them - but trust works both ways.
> > RL
> >
>
> That is a heck of a story, and the one good thing about the
> communication "age" is that we can be vocal about rip-off artists. I
> really hate to hear this, because shareware is extremely abused, and
> what you did was rare. I have thought about writing some shareware as a
> hobby, but if these bad eggs are ruining it for honest publishers, I
> might think twice.
> Dave
> K9XK
>
>
I have to agree with both here. I have been shafted by several of those
anal-retentive so called "software authors" I have paid up to 40
dollars for a program, only to find that it was a beta version, it didn't
work worth a crap and it was never upgraded. So I ended up having in a
couple of cases reconfiguring the computer as the software changed
several things in the config sys file and did not state that it was going
to and did I want to. I since have given up on the "shareware" clowns
and only buy top line software from a reputable source. Burned three
times is three times to many to be nice to them guys that wite crap any
more. My advise to the wannabe and at present software/shareware authors
is to either do it right or stay away from it, period..... All you do is
tick off a lot of guys that do a lot of talking (hey, hams talk with the
rest of the world as a hobby) about how they were ripped off by so-in-so.
Fred
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may not always agree with what you say. But I will defend to the
death your right to say it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred
On 20 Jan 1997, tyler wrote:
> Just wanted to get my opinion in here somewhere. My dad recently purchased a
> used computer for my little sister who is in high school. The computer didn't
> have any word processing programs on it and this is what it was purchased for.
> I went in search of the elusive "word for windows." Nobody carried it. I
> found plenty of upgrades. I expected to pay between $80 and 160 for this
> product. I finally found it. $320!!! HOLY SHIT! The computer only cost
> $500!!! I finally gave in for a copy of MS works for $59. The word processor
> on there works for her needs, but the way the page is displayed on the screen
> is kind of a pain in the ass. It is only half the page from side to side so
> as you type to the side of the page, the page shifts back and forth. Stupid.
> What are my alternatives? 1. Finding someone with a copy of Word for windows
> would be nice. I don't have a copy. I bought the computer used and the
> program was on it already. 2. Fork out over 300 bucks for the latest,
> greatest, wipes your ass when you're done new program.
>
> Q: Why can't I purchace an older version of the software that maybe wouldn't
> cost an arm and a leg? I really don't think my little sister needs all of
> bells and whistles on the super duper version. I WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY
> FOR THIS. (I know...how white of me) I am NOT willing to pay for all of
> the bells and whistles that the latest program comes with. I don't need
> them and I don't want them.
>
> Sorry to ruin your party. I just had to get that gripe in there.
> Tyler
>
>
>
Recently have found plenty of "look alike" software in major book stores
and computer stores for a song as far as price is concerned. For
instance, about 2 weeks ago was in a Books and Co. (no I don't work for
them nor am I associated with them in any way other than a customer) and
found a set of four CD-ROMS for around 16 bucks. Word processor,
"excell" type spread sheet, graph maker and a "sticky note" program with
audio message capacity. Price......16 bucks......not to be passed up.
No need to buy the wallet busting stuff.... Just look around. All top
line software and not shareware!!!!!
Gabriel M. Beddingfield
>Here's an idea: If you want to try out... say... Windows95, and you
>know where you can get a bootleg copy. Go out and buy a legitimate
>copy, but don't open it. Get the bootleg, install it, and if you
>like it, perfect, if not, return the new unopened package for the
>refund, and destroy the bootleg. Problem solved, everyone happy.
>
>Don Lafontaine VE2UFO
That's a good idea. Using the "book" analogy that is employed with most
software liscences, this is probably legal, too.
Though, I'm sure Bill Gates would probably find SOME way to prosecute
people on it. After all, who would actually BUY most of MS's products if
they actually got to see them beforehand?
-gabriel
Future
On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:12:24 GMT, phe...@sprynet.com (Pheezer) wrote:
>I can't believe you clowns. Here you are, defending theft.
Some of us don't believe software piracy is theft in the traditional
sense. In order for something to be stolen, one party must suffer a
loss. It's unclear whether or not this happens in many cases of
software piracy. I'm not saying that piracy is morally acceptable -
that is for each person to decide for themselves. But it's not
traditional theft. That's why there's a different name for it,
piracy. Some people feel that some forms of piracy actually help the
industry, by advertising the products and allowing "try before you
buy." It's not a clear-cut issue.
--
If you would like to Email me, my address is "future at blarg dot net"
Check out my home page at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html
Bill Sohl
phe...@sprynet.com (Pheezer) wrote:
>bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>>What license. Such alleged licenses have yet to win in court.
>>I assume you are talking about shrinkwrap and/or shareware.
>>
>>In the shrinkwrap, the license is NOT agreed to by anyone just
>>because they purchased it. In shareware, there is no license
>>at all...only an expectation based on honesty that users will
>>pay for it if they CONTINUE to use it.
>>
>>As to ownership...I own all the software I have.
>No, you don't. Read it, stupid.
Read what, the aleged license I never agreed to?
>> It is not leased anymore than the books on my shelves are leased. There has
>>never been any case involving over the counter software that
>>has established that the purchaser only has a use and not actual
>>ownership of the copy they bought.
>>
>>Not true for most software, especially shrinkwrap. Once its
>>opened you can't return it. In any case, I stand by my comments above
>>also as to ownership and licenses.
>Of course you do. You're wrong, but go ahead.
Perhaps you can provide some case law to sustain
your opinion.
This issue has been beat to death in misc.legal.computing and
there has yet to be any case law to establish the claims you
make...i.e. that software is
leased and not owned when sold in over the counter
retail stores and/or via mail-order.
>>Nothing wrong with being honest, but it works both ways too.
>Honest???? You call what you do HONEST??
Just what have I done that you consider to be dishonest?
I didn't post the original comments. I only posted
the most recent comments to which now you have
replied. If my comments are dishonest I must confess
total ignorance to what you may be basing your
opinion on.
>I can't believe you clowns. Here you are, defending theft. But let someone
>just *think* about operating a ham radio without a license and you would be
>sreaming bloody murder. By the way - you may think that the ham license with
>your call on it is yours - it's not. It belongs to the government, which can
>revoke its use at any time. You're a bunch of hypocrites.
Where have I defended theft? Please, be specific.
As to my license, and call, just who claimed it couldn't be revoked?
What's your point to even mentioning it.
>Read the packages, folks. You don't own the software. If you want to whine
>about it, then whine about it on the airwaves and keep the crap out of the
>newsgroup.
Learn something about the law. You can't enforce a contract (i.e.
license) after the purchase. As above, just provide us with one
case law cite to substantiate your claim.
>Bill, I hope you don't instill your crap to your students. If you don't even
>bother to read the shrinkwrapped notices, I really question whether you are
>qualified to teach anyone anything.
Again...shrinkwrap licenses are not enforceable. If they were, you'd
have seen it done already.
>Of course it's piracy. What have you got? A dictionary with some of the
>definitions you don't like substitued with those you dream up???
Nothing I have written here condones actual piracy. It is in your
mind that you seem to think that.
Jeffrey Herman
Bill Sohl <bill...@planet.net> wrote:
>there has yet to be any case law to establish the claims you
>make...i.e. that software is
>leased and not owned when sold in over the counter
>retail stores and/or via mail-order.
>Learn something about the law. You can't enforce a contract (i.e.
>license) after the purchase. As above, just provide us with one
>case law cite to substantiate your claim.
Hi Bill - Think of it as buying a book. You own the book, but you're
not free to reproduce the contents in any manner without permission
from the author ("fair use" aside).
Another example would be purchasing a video taped movie; you own
the tape but just try making copies and then distributing them!
This topic really has nothing to do with ham radio. ("But my computer
runs my radio!" some will say, and I'll respond that my home houses my
radio but I don't discuss carpentry on here.)
Jeff KH2PZ
Walt Davidson
Fred <peer...@dmapub.dma.org> wrote:
::I have to agree with both here. I have been shafted by several of those
::anal-retentive so called "software authors" I have paid up to 40
::dollars for a program,
Wow! That must have *really* broken the bank! Did you need to apply
for an overdraft?
::(hey, hams talk with the
::rest of the world as a hobby) about how they were ripped off by so-in-so.
Hmmm .... yes. I was wondering if you whined just as much on the air as
you do here. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
:-)
--
("'\-/'").___..--''"-._
( 0_ 0 ) -. ( ).-.__.)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) ._ . -..-'
_..--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
(().-'' (().' ((!.-'
Cyber Kitty
mmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww
Cheers
Walt Davidson
Roy Lewallen
In article <ka1tox-ya02408000...@news.tiac.net>,
ka1...@bmugbos.org (Tom McGee) wrote:
>. . .
>In the case of software, I am not aware of any commercial software that
you
>can return for a refund after you try it. I don't buy software anymore
>without trying it first. If this means a bootleg copy, then so be it. I
>spent thousands of dollars on garbage software before wising up.
>. . .
The ELNEC and EZNEC antenna modeling programs can be returned at any time
for a full refund if you're not satisfied. This has always been my policy
(I am the developer and seller), and is stated clearly at the beginning of
the manual. The return rate has been roughly one in 300.
I've gotten a refund with no hassle for two other programs I've returned.
(One was in the $50 category, the other around $1000.) Perhaps you should
choose your vendors more carefully.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Bill Gunshannon
In article <32E3CE...@blackbelt.com>, Ben Williams <bwil...@blackbelt.com> writes:
|> Pheezer wrote:
|>
|> > I can't believe you clowns. Here you are, defending theft. But let someone
|> > just *think* about operating a ham radio without a license and you would be
|> > sreaming bloody murder.
|>
|> class - the highest license. AA7AS. I've also passed the commercial licenses. I
|> do not, repeat NOT, support piracy, or the nonsense that this guy was spouting,
|> and I know other hams that do not. Piracy is rampant among hams, but I am not
|> sure that it is any less so than the general population.
|>
|>
|> syllabus in most edu systems
And who is painting wit too broad a brush now???
bill KB3YV
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bi...@cs.uofs.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Paul S.M. Curran
some...@internet.com (Future) wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:12:24 GMT, phe...@sprynet.com (Pheezer) wrote:
>
>>I can't believe you clowns. Here you are, defending theft.
>
>Some of us don't believe software piracy is theft in the traditional
>sense. In order for something to be stolen, one party must suffer a
Theft is theft, whether non-traditional or not. And they do suffer a loss. You re
stealing revenues from them.
>loss. It's unclear whether or not this happens in many cases of
>software piracy. I'm not saying that piracy is morally acceptable -
>that is for each person to decide for themselves. But it's not
>traditional theft. That's why there's a different name for it,
>piracy. Some people feel that some forms of piracy actually help the
Piracy IS Theft.
>industry, by advertising the products and allowing "try before you
>buy." It's not a clear-cut issue.
Since when is stealing not a black and white issue?
Paul Curran-
Gary Coffman
In article <5c1smk$n...@news.Hawaii.Edu> jhe...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>Bill Sohl <bill...@planet.net> wrote:
>>there has yet to be any case law to establish the claims you
>>make...i.e. that software is
>>leased and not owned when sold in over the counter
>>retail stores and/or via mail-order.
>>...
>>Learn something about the law. You can't enforce a contract (i.e.
>>license) after the purchase. As above, just provide us with one
>>case law cite to substantiate your claim.
>
>Hi Bill - Think of it as buying a book. You own the book, but you're
>not free to reproduce the contents in any manner without permission
>from the author ("fair use" aside).
>
>Another example would be purchasing a video taped movie; you own
>the tape but just try making copies and then distributing them!
Unfortunately, most software licenses aren't setup this way.
Borland has a "like a book" license (which I consider perfectly
reasonable), but most of the other software vendors don't. They
claim to retain ownership of the product you thought you bought.
All they say you're buying is a license to use it, IE they are
claiming it is defacto a rental.
Now I don't have a problem with that either, if the software vendors
would treat it like a rental, IE I expect them to deliver a functional
product meeting their claims, I expect them to maintain their product
for the duration of the rental, and I expect them to allow me to cancel
the rental agreement and get a refund of the unused portion of the contract
if I'm either not satisfied or find I no longer need their product. But they
don't do that. They claim that once the shrinkwrap is broken, it is
my problem. They disclaim all liability. And that's defacto a no
warranty sale.
That's why shrinkwrap licenses haven't held up in court. If it waddles
like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck no matter what else you
want to call it. The courts have found it to be a no warranty sale, not
a rental, so the product does belong to you, and you can do with it what
you like (within copyright fair use guidelines, IE like a book). If I
own a book, I can rip out pages, scribble in the margins, sell it to
someone else as a used book, etc. If I don't like the way the book
ends, I can rip out the last chapter and glue in one of my own. It
is mine, I can use or abuse my copy of the book any way I like. I
can even burn it if I want.
I can't xerox it and sell copies, and I can't pass it off as my work.
That's piracy and plagarism respectively. But I can reverse engineer
it or patch it to my heart's content. Almost all of the shrinkwrap
licenses say I can't, but the courts say those restrictions aren't
enforceable. Note all this applies only to the single copy I bought.
I can resell that *one* copy, no matter how I've modified it, but I
can't make other copies and sell them, or even give them away. That
would violate copyright, and would be piracy.
True licensing also exists. IBM practiced it with mainframe
software, and a few other companies did too. One had to negotiate
and sign an agreement, a contract, *prior* to tendering payment,
to be allowed to use the software. This is a true licensing
arrangement freely negotiated by both parties prior to the
transaction, and the vendor retains ownership of the code,
and responsibility for its behavior as well, during the period
of the license. Where shrinkwrap licenses fail is that the terms
are not fully disclosed until after the point of sale, and the
vendor won't give a full refund after the shrinkwrap is opened,
so the terms are not freely entered into by the buyer.
Now shareware falls in a special niche. It can be divided into
two rough categories, crippleware and begware. Crippleware has
some key functionality disabled, and the author expects someone
possessing a copy of the program to pay the author for an authorizing
code to restore that functionality. There is no legal liability
to do so, however. People can do without the functionality, or they
can patch or reverse engineer the code to restore the functionality
themselves. Now I don't like crippleware, but it is the author's
right and choice to distribute it that way. If I want the full
functionality from the program, I'll pay.
Begware is fully functional, and depends solely on the charity of
those possessing copies to send money to the author. There is no
contractual obligation for anyone to pay for begware. It is strictly
a matter of conscience on the part of a possessor of the shareware.
The fact that a good number of people do pay for begware is rather
remarkable. I like begware, and I send the requested donation to
the author of begware that I like and use.
In both cases the code is freely given to people prior to any transfer
of funds or any formal contract being drawn. Like the case of the
shrinkwrap license, the only protection the code retains is copyright.
And like a book, the possessor of the code can do with it as he likes
under fair use, including patching or reverse engineering it. But unlike
the case of the book, the shareware author has also given explicit
permission for people to copy and redistribute his code at will. This
is how shareware is distributed. So it is like a book which says "Xerox me"
on the cover. It is impossible to pirate shareware because what could be
called piracy in another context is in this case specifically authorized
by the shareware author.
(Redistributing an authorizing code issued by the author of crippleware
would be piracy, though, because it was not freely distributed. You only
bought one copy, and that's all you've got, one copy. You can resell that
one copy, but you can't *make* copies of it for redistribution. It is
*not* shareware.)
The thing that started this thread, the offer of a patch to remove
the begware notice from a piece of begware, is not piracy. It might
not be nice from the POV of the begware author, but it isn't piracy.
It is perfectly legal for me to tear the author's bio out of a book
I possess, or discard a publisher's ad tucked in the book. If someone
wants to give me a tool to make that easier, he can do that too.
I think this is harmful to the concept of shareware, but it isn't
illegal.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | with previous uucp addresses
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | Email to ke...@radio.org
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
William A. Wetzel
Piracy and Customer Satifaction:
Although software piracy is a problem, it does not EXCUSE any vendor for
providing customer satisfaction. I have learned not to purchase anything
without an option of a full refund if I'm not satisfied with a product.
I am sure that everyone else agrees that there is a lot of junk software
out there and I for one will not take a gamble on any package because of
the piracy problem. If your vendor cannot accept that, then perhaps some
time needs to be spent on your part for finding a better vendor.
--
William A. Wetzel
n6...@pacbell.net
n6...@juno.com
ASN
Tom McGee wrote:
<snipped>
> I am not aware of any commercial software that you can return for a > refund after you try it.
Actually, there are several software companies that offer a money-back
guarantee on their software if you don't like it. Microsoft, for one.
Maybe not for every program they sell, but "Flight Simulator", for
example, comes with a 30-day money back guarantee. I think some of the
stuff that Symantec sells also comes with a money-back guarantee. It's
printed *right on the box* if you look for it. Also, a *few, very few*
retailers still give refunds on software if you request it. I think
there's a chain called "Micro Center" or something close to that which
offers refunds on software. However, most stores do not.
Just my observations. (No refund.)
AN
Tom McGee
w7...@teleport.com (Roy Lewallen) wrote:
>The ELNEC and EZNEC antenna modeling programs can be returned at any time
>for a full refund if you're not satisfied. This has always been my policy
>(I am the developer and seller), and is stated clearly at the beginning of
>the manual. The return rate has been roughly one in 300.
Bravo to you, Roy! I wish your policy was more universal.
73
aidan
>Theft is theft, whether non-traditional or not. And they do suffer a loss. You re
>stealing revenues from them.
I beg to differ. What about some poverty-stricken student who gets
hold of a bootleg copy of, say, Photoshop? The price tag is way beyond
his means and he wouldn't dream of going out and buying a copy even if
the bootleg wasn't available.
There are probably thousands of people out there using software,
albeit illegally, in this way. You can't lose what you never had.
delete this to reply Richard MacDonald
On 20 Jan 1997 14:39:20 GMT, ty...@cyberia.com (tyler) may have written:
>Just wanted to get my opinion in here somewhere. My dad recently purchased a
>used computer for my little sister who is in high school. The computer didn't
>have any word processing programs on it and this is what it was purchased for.
> I went in search of the elusive "word for windows." Nobody carried it. I
>found plenty of upgrades. I expected to pay between $80 and 160 for this
>product. I finally found it. $320!!! HOLY SHIT! The computer only cost
>$500!!! I finally gave in for a copy of MS works for $59. The word processor
>on there works for her needs, but the way the page is displayed on the screen
>is kind of a pain in the ass. It is only half the page from side to side so
>as you type to the side of the page, the page shifts back and forth. Stupid.
> What are my alternatives? 1. Finding someone with a copy of Word for windows
>would be nice. I don't have a copy. I bought the computer used and the
>program was on it already. 2. Fork out over 300 bucks for the latest,
>greatest, wipes your ass when you're done new program.
>
<deleted to save space>
>
>Sorry to ruin your party. I just had to get that gripe in there.
>Tyler
>
If you want to be able to read a full line of text you must either shorten
the lines (change the margins) or switch to a higher resolution on the
screen. If you switch to the higher resolution and cannot read the smaller
text, just get a larger monitor. Of course that could cost quite a bit.
Most 14" monitors these days can display 80 character lines or more in
800X600 resolution.
Dick MacDonald
dickmac@(delete this to reply)fastservice.com
The extra info is included to foil the automated collection 'bots.
Mark Bryant
aidan <ai...@gold.u-net.com> wrote in article
<32e734a9...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>...
Should that poor student borrow your car just because he wants
transportation? This half baked rationalization is what is costing
everyone more because the software vendors must take into account all of
the thieves.
The same folks who argue that piracy is not stealing are the same who
believe that porn does not exploit and cheating on taxes does not hurt
anyone. You most likely apply the same bs logic to your job and then can't
understand why business isn't great.
Mark
Gabriel M. Beddingfield
In article <01bc07f8$0bc3dac0$a3d879a8@soho>,
Mark Bryant <bry...@sohobusiness.com> wrote:
>The same folks who argue that piracy is not stealing are the same who
>believe that porn does not exploit and cheating on taxes does not hurt
Mark, you don't even want to get on THAT subject... How is VOLUNTARY
posing EXPLOITATION?
Not waiting for the answer (because it has nothing to do with SW),
gabriel
Bill Funk
Piracy doesn't affect the support a software maker gives. This is
nothing
but an excuse to steal.
I don't know of any software makers who don't offer a money-back
guarantee.
While some *vendors* may not give your money back, if you contact the
maker with a problem, they will give your money back.
Those who feel a "try before you buy" deal is best, this is what
shareware
is about.
If shareware isn't your cup of tea, join a user group. The members will
have tried almost all applications, and can help you make a decision.
Piracy is theft. It raises the cost of software for those of us who
don't steal. It steals the work of many people.
There's no excuse for it at all.
To defend it is like defending rape. It only makes you look stupid.
Bill
David A. Cooley
aidan wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:38:23 GMT, ps...@ix.netcom.com (Paul S.M.
> Curran) wrote:
>
> >Theft is theft, whether non-traditional or not. And they do suffer a loss. You re
> >stealing revenues from them.
>
> I beg to differ. What about some poverty-stricken student who gets
> hold of a bootleg copy of, say, Photoshop? The price tag is way beyond
> his means and he wouldn't dream of going out and buying a copy even if
> the bootleg wasn't available.
>
> There are probably thousands of people out there using software,
> albeit illegally, in this way. You can't lose what you never had.
Stretch this a bit further and you are saying if the same poverty
stricken student steals a Mercedes Benz, Mercedes didn't lose anything,
as he never would have bought one anyway... Let him keep it...
Theft is still theft. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. It
doesn't mean it's OK to steal things you can't afford.
Later,
Dave
--
========================================================================
David Cooley N5XMT Packet: N5XMT@W4RAL.#RTP.NC.USA.NOAM
Internet: cool...@ipass.net And Web: http://www.ipass.net/~cooldave/
Sponges grow in the ocean... Wonder how deep it would be if they didn't!
========================================================================
Curtis Wheeler
aidan wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:38:23 GMT, ps...@ix.netcom.com (Paul S.M.
> Curran) wrote:
>
> >Theft is theft, whether non-traditional or not. And they do suffer a loss. You re
> >stealing revenues from them.
>
> I beg to differ. What about some poverty-stricken student who gets
> hold of a bootleg copy of, say, Photoshop? The price tag is way beyond
> his means and he wouldn't dream of going out and buying a copy even if
> the bootleg wasn't available.
What kind of cottonheaded logic is this? Justify stealing something
because you can't afford it?
--
Curtis
Gary Coffman
In article <01bc07f8$0bc3dac0$a3d879a8@soho> "Mark Bryant" <bry...@sohobusiness.com> writes:
>aidan <ai...@gold.u-net.com> wrote in article
><32e734a9...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>...
>> Curran) wrote:
>>
>> >Theft is theft, whether non-traditional or not. And they do suffer a
>loss. You re
>> >stealing revenues from them.
>>
>> I beg to differ. What about some poverty-stricken student who gets
>> hold of a bootleg copy of, say, Photoshop? The price tag is way beyond
>> his means and he wouldn't dream of going out and buying a copy even if
>> the bootleg wasn't available.
>>
>> albeit illegally, in this way. You can't lose what you never had.
>>
>transportation? This half baked rationalization is what is costing
>everyone more because the software vendors must take into account all of
>the thieves.
This is where things become non-traditional. If someone steals your
car for a joy-ride, you suffer a loss, but if they make a *copy* of
your car and drive off in that, you don't suffer a loss. Now the
auto manufacturer might try to claim a loss, since he didn't get to
sell another vehicle, but as noted above, the poor student couldn't
have bought the new vehicle anyway. The only real loss may be to
Nike because the student won't have to walk everywhere and won't need
a new pair of shoes quite so quickly.
Now that doesn't mean it isn't stealing, it is, but what it means
is the claims by the software houses that they are losing large
amounts of revenue are based on the bogus idea that they've lost
a sale. They haven't, because there was never a possibility for
a sale in the first place. The student had a choice of ripping off
Photoshop or buying a #2 lead pencil and a sketch pad.
The common claim is that if it weren't for piracy, software vendors
would lower their prices dramatically. If you believe that, I have
a bridge I'd like to show you. Mercedes could sell a lot more cars
if they lowered the price (and there's enough margin that they could
do that), but you don't see them doing that. They are skimming off the
cream of the market and ignoring the dregs. Most of the big ticket
software being ripped off is doing the same thing. Piracy, as long as
it doesn't cut into their lucrative cream skimming, is irrelevant to
them (that's why software vendors get real upset at corporate piracy,
because that threatens their cream market, but don't much care if some
hacker rips off a copy of their software to play with at home). It is
claimed by some that certain software vendors actually want some piracy
because it helps them consolidate their dominance in their market niche
by leaving no niche for lower priced competitors.
Now this latter is a real downside to piracy. Piracy tends to harm,
not the company whose software is being ripped off, but the second tier
company who might consider offering a lower cost product to sop up the
bottom of the market, IE Ford Escorts can be sold because lots of people
can't afford a Mercedes. If people could just copy the Mercedes, Escort
sales would disappear. What you would *not* see is a lowering of the
price of the Mercedes. That's a high margin cream skimmer, and Mercedes
wants to keep it that way.
The reason piracy is bad is because it hurts the little guy who wants
to do the right thing and buy his software. He can't afford the Mercedes
products, and there aren't any Escorts for him to buy because piracy
sopped up that market niche. So he doesn't have a place to spend his
limited money. He winds up either having to do without, or turn pirate
himself.
Now Borland had the right idea about how to deal with piracy. Since
most pirates don't Xerox the instruction manuals, they have to go buy
a third party book to learn how to use the software they just ripped
off. What Borland did was price their product "like a book", so that
there was no advantage to ripping them off, it cost the same either
way, so people just bought the software with the manual. Some other
vendors saw that as a threat to their cream market. They didn't want
to lower their prices to match Borland, so they started including
the manual online with their software so the pirates wouldn't need
to go buy a third party book. This killed Borland's "like a book"
sales tactic while not damaging the big software vendors' cream
corporate market.
There are two ways to make a profit from sales of any item. You
can sell a few at a very high margin, or you can sell a lot at
a very low margin. It is cheaper to produce and market the high
margin product than the low margin product because there are
fewer customers to target, less product to produce and ship,
etc. So the cream market is the most desirable one. But you
can't do that if you have effective low margin competitors
who are willing to undercut you in the cream niche. So you
let the pirates consume the volume the low margin producer
needs in order to profit, and you rid yourself of competition
in your core market. You didn't want to sell to Joe Shmoe
anyway, because you'd have to cut your price to do so, and
that would make your cream customers unhappy about paying a
higher price for the same thing, so the fact he got his copy of
your software via the Jolly Roger doesn't bother you.
There are effective ways to prevent software from being
pirated. The dongle is the classic, but Intel also offered
at one time to embed serial numbers in their chips so that
software could be written which would only work on the
particular CPU for which it was purchased. The software
vendors didn't go for that. It would have removed piracy
as an anti-competitive tactic in their cream skimming
operations.
Curtis Wheeler
aidan wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:38:23 GMT, ps...@ix.netcom.com (Paul S.M.
> Curran) wrote:
>
> >Theft is theft, whether non-traditional or not. And they do suffer a loss. You re
> >stealing revenues from them.
>
> I beg to differ. What about some poverty-stricken student who gets
> hold of a bootleg copy of, say, Photoshop? The price tag is way beyond
> his means and he wouldn't dream of going out and buying a copy even if
> the bootleg wasn't available.
What kind of cottonheaded logig is this? Justify stealing something
Carolyn
In article <5c0rvo$s...@nr1.ottawa.istar.net>, lafo...@cn.ca says...
> On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 03:33:53 GMT, barryo @ fastlink.com.au (Barry
> O'Grady) wrote:
> >:
> >:As a consequence of these unpleasant events i have decided that
> >:there will be
> >: NO SHAREWARWE VERSION AFTER HAMCOMM 3.1
> >:
> >:Any new features will only be available in the registered program.
> >
> >Maybe you should just learn to program better.
>
> Heheheh, no matter HOW good you are, there's always a hacker that
> can outdo you.
>
> Please buy a clue...
>
> Don Lafontaine VE2UFO
>
Look, you Canadian bastard, things are tough enough as it is trying to
get good technical software without an ass hole like you further
complicating things for everybody. Next time you can't pay for it, come
on the NG and ask publicly for money. You could probably get enough $
.02 donations to cover it.
Howard.
Bob Lewis
Paul S.M. Curran wrote:
>
> Theft is theft, whether non-traditional or not. And they do suffer a
> loss. You're stealing revenues from them.
>
True! It often takes hundreds of hours to write, test and debug a
program. Considering the limited sales potential of amateur related
software, especially terminal programs and such, and the price most
shareware authors are asking for registration, they are probably getting
paid 25 to 50 cents and hour for their time - and some want to steal
even that from them. If they charged "fair market value" for their time
you'd probably pay upwards of $1000 a copy for a terminal program!
Most shareware authors will never get rich writting amateur radio
related software. Registration at least permits the author to recoupe
something for his time and effort and makes him feel the user's support
and appreciate his efforts.
John Ackermann
In article <1997Jan21....@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) writes:
[discussion of software licensing before and after this extract snipped]
Although I tend to agree with Gary's sentiments, a couple of clarifications
are needed:
A case recently *did* uphold the validity of shrinkwrap licenses.
(_ProCD_v._Zeidenberg_, 7th Circuit, 1996 -- don't have the full cite handy).
This decision also held, in a brief and unnecessary discussion that is
almost certainly dicta rather than precedent, that limitations on reverse
engineering in a shrinkwrap license are enforceable.
Trying to be objective (not always easy for me...), the ProCD case is probably
correct on the overall enforceability of a shrinkwrap license, but goes too
far in allowing restrictions on reverse engineering to be enforceable.
Unfortunately, the 7th circuit is well-respected, as is the judge who wrote
the decision, so ProCD is likely to be causing trouble for a while.
You also need to be careful when talking about rentals in the context of
software. There's a statute called the Software Rental Act that basically
outlaws rental of software (except for some very limited exceptions for
libraries, etc.) and raises some questions about to what extent the "first
sale doctrine" (that allows you to resell a book) applies to computer software.
John AG9V
aidan
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:17:48 GMT, ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman)
wrote:
>This is where things become non-traditional. If someone steals your
>car for a joy-ride, you suffer a loss, but if they make a *copy* of
>your car and drive off in that, you don't suffer a loss.
Exactly the point I was trying to make. I don't condone theft. But to
claim there is a _loss_ in the case I cited is clearly stretching a
point. It may not be right, but there isn't a loss to the software
author because he wouldn't have sold that person a copy of his program
anyway. And no, I don't believe Photoshop would be 50 dollars a time
if we wiped out piracy tomorrow. Or even 100.
Dave Benzel
Ahhh, the same old rationalization:
It's to expensive...
I don't want to work to pay for it...
But I wish to use the product of some one elses labor anyway...
Therefore, since I need it, I will steal it.
"From each accdording to his ability, to each according
to his need" - Karl Marx
dB
KD6RF
Gabriel M. Beddingfield
>screen. If you switch to the higher resolution and cannot read the smaller
>text, just get a larger monitor. Of course that could cost quite a bit.
>Most 14" monitors these days can display 80 character lines or more in
>800X600 resolution.
>
>Dick MacDonald
I think you missed the point. In shaving off a few pennies, you're
suggesting that they buy new equipment (video card and/or monitor)...
which will cost MORE pennies.
-gabriel
Charles Hunter
Gabriel M. Beddingfield (bug...@utkux4.utcc.utk.edu) writes:
> Though, I'm sure Bill Gates would probably find SOME way to prosecute
> people on it. After all, who would actually BUY most of MS's products if
> they actually got to see them beforehand?
>
Not so... Microsoft will actually send you a free 60 evaluation copy of
some software just by calling their 1-800 number.
73's
Charlie
--
ac...@freenet.carleton.ca (Charles Hunter)
Foo
Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
> .............
> That's because most stores are required by law to not accept refunds
> for opened software.
That's a completely bogus claim. No law prohibits accepting a return on
software (and, in fact, a number of laws that require a product be of
suitable quality for sale actually require it.) What the laws do
require is that a product (not just software) accepted back by a
retailer not be resold AS NEW. Many stores completely disregard this
regulation and resell the returned product (many even go to great
lengths to point out that they are going to do it, WalMart was very
clear on that recently with me when they checked all the paperwork that
came with a camera saying they needed it to resell the camera [it was
all there]). There certainly is no law that keeps a store from accepting
a return and sending the product back to the manufacturer for credit;
they just don't want to do it.
Fred
Sorry to have offended you Walt, but just stating the facts here. If you
are gonna write the stuff and charge for it. Support it properly!!!!!
And this isn't whining about it either, just stating another fact. I do
pay much more for other software, it isn't beta version or half written
stuff that any high school kid could write either. And yes, I do have
software written by hams and have paid them for it.. APRS is one of them
from Bob Bruninga, WB4APR. So don't spout that phony baloney whiney crap
to me. It don't fly at all around here.
Fred KE8TQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may not always agree with what you say. But I will defend to the
death your right to say it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel M. Beddingfield
In article <32E5BB...@ix.netcom.com>, ASN <pers...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, there are several software companies that offer a money-back
>guarantee on their software if you don't like it. Microsoft, for one.
>Maybe not for every program they sell, but "Flight Simulator", for
>example, comes with a 30-day money back guarantee. I think some of the
Isn't "Flight Simulator" $40 software? To return that, I'd have to ship
it to MS, as well as make a toll call to work it out with them. 99% of
the time I buy from a retailer, and they don't take refunds. In addition,
many software vendors will void their warranties and policies if you
purchase it through a 3rd party.
>stuff that Symantec sells also comes with a money-back guarantee. It's
>printed *right on the box* if you look for it. Also, a *few, very few*
>retailers still give refunds on software if you request it. I think
>there's a chain called "Micro Center" or something close to that which
>offers refunds on software. However, most stores do not.
That's because most stores are required by law to not accept refunds for
opened software.
-gabriel
Don Lafontaine
Ummm, Carolyn... I'm in favor of the developer in this issue.
Before you decide to jump in and shoot off your fat mouth, read the
history of the thread.
Sheesh, and my Fellow Canadians thank you for your kind words.
Don Lafontaine
VE2UFO
Michael P. Deignan
In article <5c6jak$5...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
Jeffrey Herman <jhe...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>I took the liberty of changing a few words (see below) to show how
>ridiculous (and dangerous) beliefs of this sort are. God help our
>society.
Unfortunately Jeff, the two are not equal.
Software (at least a bootlegged copy) is an intangible item.
The Porsche in your example is a tangible item. By my "theft" of it,
I deprive you of your ability to use it.
The same is not true of the bootlegged software. By bootlegging it,
you do not deprive someone else from using it.
Akin to your example, if I see your Porsche and decide I like it and
want to use it, and thus make my own copy, deprive you of yours?
Not that this makes the behaviour correct, mind you, but comparisons
to tangible property examples are simply not appropriate.
MD
--
--
-- "Guns don't kill people. I kill people." -- T-shirt slogan
--
-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
Dave Burr
aidan wrote:
> I beg to differ. What about some poverty-stricken student who gets
> hold of a bootleg copy of, say, Photoshop? The price tag is way beyond
> his means and he wouldn't dream of going out and buying a copy even if
> the bootleg wasn't available.
>
> There are probably thousands of people out there using software,
> albeit illegally, in this way. You can't lose what you never had.
Wow! This is great! There a lots of things I can't afford! Gonna go grab
some of that right now. And maybe if I scrimped and saved I *could*
afford it, but as long as the line is not clear cut, I may as well bend
the rules a little bit.
"Not being able to afford it" is my ticket to riches!
Dave
Kory Hamzeh
On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, W.F.Schroeder wrote:
>
> It seems Mr Raisley has forgotten that he can only sell
> interfaces because of the countless hours of work me and other
> shareware authors have invested to create affordable programs.
>
> --
>
> I just had to learn that the same has been done to HamComm 3.1
> by a hacker group (*not* by N9ZLE, maybe it was too difficult).
>
> As a consequence of these unpleasant events i have decided that
> there will be
> NO SHAREWARWE VERSION AFTER HAMCOMM 3.1
>
> Any new features will only be available in the registered program.
>
> 73 de Django
> DL5YEC
> Author of HamComm
Good for you! I don't understand why people seem to think that it is OK
NOT to pay for software when some person has worked so hard writing that
software!
Kory
AC6RN
Robert Casey
When you consider that most software is made and sold by large corporations,
it's a little hard to feel sorry for them. Especially after one has been
downsized because some schmuck in upper management decides the company
has a tummy ache. Most software authors are just employees, just like
the rest of us.
Recently saw on PBS a debate on what's wrong with American industry,
someone from Japan comments that American companies have killed any
sense of loyalty from their employees. No shit Sherlock, after all
these damn mergers and takeovers and downsizings. Give us a REASON to
be loyal.
Hard to think morals with companies that act amoral to their
employees. Legal, yes, moral, no. I support the Korean workers in
their protests. Give me a little respect, and then I'll worry
about your copyrights.
Jeffrey Herman
Someone@somewhere sort of wrote:
>I beg to differ. What about some poverty-stricken student who gets
>hold of a stolen car, say, a Porsche? The price tag is way beyond
>his means and he wouldn't dream of going out and buying a car even if
>the stolen one wasn't available.
>
>There are probably thousands of people out there using cars,
>albeit illegally, in this way. You can't lose what you never had.
I took the liberty of changing a few words (see below) to show how
ridiculous (and dangerous) beliefs of this sort are. God help our
society.
Stolen car = bootleg copy
a Porsche = Photoshop
car = copy
stolen one = bootleg
cars = software
Jeff KH2PZ
macino@ibm.net@ibm.net
In <5buapk$10ulk$1...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, n2...@ibm.net (Robert Langston) writes:
>James Lee Tabor <ku...@wtrt.net> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>
>>This subject is really very simple.
>
>>Most people wouldn't think of going into a store, taking software
>>off the shelf and leaving the store without paying for it. That
>>is stealing, right?
>
>>When you take something without permission, or without paying
>>for it your stealing - therefore you are a thief. Is this not
>>correct?
>
>>Why is it ok to steal from the software author, when you wouldn't
>>think of stealing from a merchant?
>
>>Some will say, I bought the software - I'll do what I want with it.
>
>>Sorry, this is NOT the case. You made an agreement before you began
>>using the product.
>
>>When you "buy software" there is most always a license statement,
>>or license agreement, by which you must agree to abide before
>>proceeding to "install" said software. This statement gives you
>>the right to "use" the software, not own the software.
>
>>(This is sort of like the difference between renting and buying
>>a home...)
>
>>You gave your word, and agreed to these terms before you began
>>using the software. You most always have the option to return
>>the product if you can't agree to the terms.
>
>>Here's a web site with some interesting facts on the subject.
>>(this site may be gone now?)
>>http://www.bsa.org/piracy/piracy.html
>
>>Please don't take food from the table of these hard working
>>individuals. Instead, help educate others. Software prices
>>will vary with supply and demand. More sales means lower prices
>>along with new versions.
>
>>Most software pirates haven't thought through what they are doing.
>
>>Thank you very much for your time and thanks also for your help.
>
>>73,
>>Jim - KU5S
>
>I've got a problem, why do they require you to purchase beer, when we
>only rent it...How many times do you purchase an artist's (programmer)
>program package, take it home install it and find out it's a piece of
>shit. Try returning it, oh you opened the box...Well you're software
>overwrote the drivers installed in the windows directory for my other
>program..The artist used the same filename with a dll
>extension....Will the author come out to my house and fix the agony
>that will take 5 hours to reinstall, or worseoff, the other program
>has some obscure write protection in place which prevents
>re-installing by the already licensed user...Programmers have fucked
>me in this way more times that I can count. Get a life, stop your
>bitching and write about something ham related the next time you send
>a message to *.newsgroups...and have a nice day.........n2cjj@ibm.net
>n2...@ibm.net
>
Overwriting drivers? Sounds like your problems are self inflicted. Maybe you
need to have a clue as to what your doing, before you start installing that
pirated software.
Jim
macino@ibm.net@ibm.net
In <32E38D...@ix.netcom.com>, "Phil M." <phi...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Dave Burr wrote:
>>
>> That is a heck of a story, and the one good thing about the
>> communication "age" is that we can be vocal about rip-off artists. I
>> really hate to hear this, because shareware is extremely abused, and
>> what you did was rare. I have thought about writing some shareware as a
>> hobby, but if these bad eggs are ruining it for honest publishers, I
>> might think twice.
>> Dave
>> K9XK
>
>The idea behind the ASP - Association of Shareware Professionals - is to
>try to
>put some guidelines for the shareware developer in place. If you look
>for
>the ASP logo in a shareware package (most brag about it), you will
>usually
>get a better product, since it's usually been reviewed by a panel first.
>And you will usually have a lesser chance of not receiving
>acknowledgement.
>
>73,
>Phil
Phil,
Is this documented someplace? I've seen several pieces of code that I wrote
years ago floating around on ASP tables at hamfests. The sellers will tell me
straight up that they have 'the authors' permission. I must have amnesia, I don't
remember giving 'permission'. Only one guy who distributes it had my permission,
because he was polite enough to ask.
Jim
Chuck Harrington
> >car for a joy-ride, you suffer a loss, but if they make a *copy* of
> >your car and drive off in that, you don't suffer a loss.
>
This is a very lame arguement, and what you are basically saying is that
copyright laws in general are not legitimate. You may feel that way, but
that is the law of land!
Bob Lewis
So it's okay to steal so long as you only steal from "large" companies?
Bill Sohl
Chuck Harrington <pake...@gate.net> wrote:
>aidan wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:17:48 GMT, ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >This is where things become non-traditional. If someone steals your
>> >car for a joy-ride, you suffer a loss, but if they make a *copy* of
>> >your car and drive off in that, you don't suffer a loss.
>This is a very lame arguement, and what you are basically saying is that
>copyright laws in general are not legitimate. You may feel that way, but
>that is the law of land!
Yet that is exactly one of the reasons the Home Recording Rights
Act was passed which allows you and me to make audio
copies of musice from the radio, from another cassett, from
a CD-ROM, etc. as long as it it for personal use. The music
industry claimed huge losses from illegal taping, but
it was shown that tho taping, even if it was stoppable,
was not going to cause hugeadditional sales at all because
most tapig was by teenagers without the discretionary income.
Don't kill the messenger here just because you don't
like the message. Review the legislative background
involved in that copyright change.
Bill Sohl (Amateur Radio Operator K2UNK)
Internet Instructor, Mount Olive (NJ) Community School
Gary Coffman
In article <32E60F...@staffnet.com> rle...@staffnet.com writes:
>Paul S.M. Curran wrote:
>>
>> Theft is theft, whether non-traditional or not. And they do suffer a
>> loss. You're stealing revenues from them.
>>
>
>True! It often takes hundreds of hours to write, test and debug a
>program. Considering the limited sales potential of amateur related
>software, especially terminal programs and such, and the price most
>shareware authors are asking for registration, they are probably getting
>paid 25 to 50 cents and hour for their time - and some want to steal
>even that from them. If they charged "fair market value" for their time
>you'd probably pay upwards of $1000 a copy for a terminal program!
Actually you wouldn't. No one would pay $1000 for a terminal program,
so your return per hour spent would be $0. It doesn't matter how much
time or effort a programmer puts into a piece of software, it is only
worth what people are willing to pay for it. That hinges on its perceived
value *to them*. This is Marketing 101.
Most ham software has a low perceived value, so it will never command
a high price. That means that you have to A) put little effort into it,
or B) get a *huge* distribution in order to make a profit on it, or C)
you have to accept you're doing it as a hobby and release it to the public
domain.
Gary Coffman
In article <wa2iseE4...@netcom.com> wa2...@netcom.com (Robert Casey) writes:
>When you consider that most software is made and sold by large corporations,
>it's a little hard to feel sorry for them. Especially after one has been
>downsized because some schmuck in upper management decides the company
>has a tummy ache. Most software authors are just employees, just like
>the rest of us.
And just as subject to layoff as the rest of us if their company doesn't
turn in good quarterly results. So don't feel morally justified in ripping
off the big companies, because you're really ripping off the employees
too.
>Recently saw on PBS a debate on what's wrong with American industry,
>someone from Japan comments that American companies have killed any
>sense of loyalty from their employees. No shit Sherlock, after all
>these damn mergers and takeovers and downsizings. Give us a REASON to
>be loyal.
Unfortunately, what you say here is true. Loyalty is a two way street.
If the company isn't concerned about its employees, its employees won't
be concerned about the company.
Gary Coffman
In article <32e763d0...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk> ai...@gold.u-net.com writes:
>On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:17:48 GMT, ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman)
>wrote:
>
>>car for a joy-ride, you suffer a loss, but if they make a *copy* of
>>your car and drive off in that, you don't suffer a loss.
>
>claim there is a _loss_ in the case I cited is clearly stretching a
>point. It may not be right, but there isn't a loss to the software
>author because he wouldn't have sold that person a copy of his program
>anyway. And no, I don't believe Photoshop would be 50 dollars a time
>if we wiped out piracy tomorrow. Or even 100.
Right, they're cream skimmers. They make their money from sales to
the Fortune 500. If they lowered their price to the range where Joe
Shmoe could afford it, their corporate customers would demand the
same price break, and their profit would fly out the window.
But someone might decide to offer a lowball program that does most
of what Photoshop does for under $100 if piracy hadn't destroyed
that market niche. That would fall into Joe's price range, *and* it
would attract the Fortune 500 buyers too. Photoshop wouldn't like
that. So they make it easy to pirate their software.
That doesn't excuse piracy, of course, it just shows that some of
the software vendors who scream about piracy are really hypocrites.
They've taken advantage of piracy as a way to maintain an anti-
competitive position in their core market.
Gary Coffman
In article <32E719...@gate.net> pake...@gate.net writes:
>aidan wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:17:48 GMT, ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >This is where things become non-traditional. If someone steals your
>> >car for a joy-ride, you suffer a loss, but if they make a *copy* of
>> >your car and drive off in that, you don't suffer a loss.
>
>copyright laws in general are not legitimate. You may feel that way, but
>that is the law of land!
If you had bothered to read the rest of the article before spouting off,
you'd have discovered that I do not use this as a justification for violating
copyright. As someone with copyrighted works of my own, I am sensitive to
copyright issues. I was addressing the very specific point that piracy is
not a direct loss to either the person whose software is copied, or to the
software's author. This is very different from the theft of an automobile,
which the person to which I was responding was attempting to liken it.
Auto theft causes a direct loss to the owner of the auto, but ironically is
a net gain for the auto manufacturer since he gets to sell a replacement
vehicle. Piracy represents no such direct loss to the person whose software
is copied, and in most cases it represents no loss to the author of the
software either since the person committing the ripoff wouldn't have bought
a legitimate copy anyway.
I then went on to note that some software vendors subtly encourage piracy
as an anti-competitive measure to maintain their market position in their
core market. When they scream about $20 billion in losses due to piracy,
they are being hypocrites as well as playing fast and loose with phantom
sales numbers. The truth is, most ripoffs don't represent lost sales. The
reason for that is because most ripoffs are committed by people who only
want to "play" with the software, and wouldn't have paid the inflated
price of a legitimate copy for mere play. (Now commercial ripoffs are
a different matter, and software vendors *do* treat those seriously because
they *do* represent lost sales, but they are a small part of the piracy
problem.)
Gary Marsh
Don Lafontaine (lafo...@cn.ca) wrote:
:
: OK. What's wrong with asking the 'ligitimate' owner a chance to test
: drive the program at his or her site to see if you like it? This
: would be the ONLY legal way to do it, and it keeps you from
: cluttering your disk with useless junk.
:
: I don't buy into the 'I've been burned before' bull, although it
: would be a rather cute justification for these illegal actions.
Well, let me say, "I've been burned before". "it" looks good on the
legitimate owner's computer, so i went out and bought "it" and "it" turned
out to be a piece of crap. The day it happens to you will be the day you
won't think it's bull anymore..
I had Doom 2 on my computer for a couple months before I actually went out
and bought it. And if you buy it in the long run, i don't see the problem
with it. I've done that with Doom 2, Quarantine, Telix, and a load of
other software. I really like the shareware concept, and in the event that
a product isn't shareware, personally i "make" it shareware and try it out
for a bit.
You could say that stealing a car is bad even if you pay the price of
the car afterwards, and that you even had the opportunity for a test
drive. But if you've driven 2,000km on the car and then you realize it's a
lemon, you'd be wishing you had a longer test drive.
anyhow, i think this issue has been heard a bit too much on the Net, so..
i won't say anymore on this debate :)
--
- Gary Marsh, VO1CPU
Bruce Raisley A.R.S. N9ZLE
Software is priced too high!, I gave better stuff away free.
I'm not going to pay a dime to any Basic programmer who thinks
he is hot stuff. Most large commpanies have defeated the problem
with OEM versions of their software, $15 dollars to MS for Win95
is better than a dealer shipping a hot copy with a CPU.
Did you avery wonder why you can buy a $1,500 Computer and get
about $600 worth of software with it.
If I just had more time.
I'm working on some VERY GOOD Ham study software that will create
Test pages, teach etc. All graphics included. It will be FREE
on the net when it is ready. I expect to put it on the market
after the new NOVICE/TECH question pool comes out this summer.
It will beat most of the stuff you can purchase and I will
give it away FREE, just to make a name for myself.
If anyone wants to sell it at a HAM fest, all they have to do is
tell me, no royalties, no cash it will be free.
Bruce
Future
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:30:22 GMT, ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman)
wrote:
>In article <32E60F...@staffnet.com> rle...@staffnet.com writes:
>>Paul S.M. Curran wrote:
>>>
>>> Theft is theft, whether non-traditional or not. And they do suffer a
>>> loss. You're stealing revenues from them.
>>>
>>
>>True! It often takes hundreds of hours to write, test and debug a
>>program. Considering the limited sales potential of amateur related
>>software, especially terminal programs and such, and the price most
>>shareware authors are asking for registration, they are probably getting
>>paid 25 to 50 cents and hour for their time - and some want to steal
>>even that from them. If they charged "fair market value" for their time
>>you'd probably pay upwards of $1000 a copy for a terminal program!
>
>Actually you wouldn't. No one would pay $1000 for a terminal program,
>so your return per hour spent would be $0. It doesn't matter how much
>time or effort a programmer puts into a piece of software, it is only
>worth what people are willing to pay for it. That hinges on its perceived
>value *to them*. This is Marketing 101.
>
>Most ham software has a low perceived value, so it will never command
>a high price. That means that you have to A) put little effort into it,
>or B) get a *huge* distribution in order to make a profit on it, or C)
>you have to accept you're doing it as a hobby and release it to the public
>domain.
Or, D) Release it as shareware, but realize that it's mostly a hobby
and it's unlikely you're gonna make much money with it. This is what
most shareware authors do.
As long as we're on the topic of shareware... I would say that 99% of
shareware authors neglect the quality aspect (yes, I mean 99%). In
order to really make some money with shareware, your program has to be
*TOP NOTCH*, that is, better than most commercial software. The
reason being, of course, that people have a chance to try it before
they buy it, whereas with commercial software they usually don't.
Most REALLY outstanding shareware programs make a lot of money for
their authors.
--
If you would like to Email me, my address is "future at blarg dot net"
Check out my home page at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html
Mark D. Pallans
tyler wrote:
>
> Q: Why can't I purchace an older version of the software that maybe wouldn't
> cost an arm and a leg? I really don't think my little sister needs all of
> bells and whistles on the super duper version. I WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY
> FOR THIS. (I know...how white of me) I am NOT willing to pay for all of
> the bells and whistles that the latest program comes with. I don't need
> them and I don't want them.
>
> Sorry to ruin your party. I just had to get that gripe in there.
> Tyler
Tyler -- checkout Surplus Software's web page. They sell all kinds of
older AND SOME CURRENT software at ridiculously low prices.
Gabriel M. Beddingfield
In article <5c87v5$r...@hpcvsnz.cv.hp.com>, Ron Henderson <c...@cv.hp.com> wrote:
>
>Plus Version 5 (a $50 package) with my GPS. They said that as a
>authorized Microsoft retailier they were required by Microsoft to accept
>the return and refund the money if it was within the 30-day guarantee
>period. Streets 5 did not work with my GPS and after waiting for an
I stand corrected. So MS actually does TWO thing right: Excel and their
Return policy!
I still think they write s---ty software.
-gabriel
marc_k
Charles Hunter (ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: --
: ac...@freenet.carleton.ca (Charles Hunter)
FWIW, Symantic does the same thing(and their web site has 60 day copies
available for D/L too).
Dave Burr
T.L.Bryant wrote:
>
> What does this thread have to do with radio?
>
> Tom - N8ECW
Tom:
Because we have a bunch of thieves among us who actually use ham radio
to facilitate software theft. You ever hear over the air: "Oh, you like
that program? Why don't you send me a copy?".
And we have further miserable SOB hams who rationalize the practice by
saying "So what if we steal it? We're only hurting 'big business', who
is always taking advantage of us pathetic, helpless little guys".
So the thread is to raise awareness and save us from ourselves,
hopefully setting a bit higher standard.
Dave
K9XK
Gabriel M. Beddingfield
>> What does this thread have to do with radio?
>
>to facilitate software theft. You ever hear over the air: "Oh, you like
>that program? Why don't you send me a copy?".
Translation: Nothing.
SWLs and hams are no different from anyone else.
-gabriel
Future
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:16:33 -0700, Bill Funk <skyp...@starlink.com>
wrote:
>Piracy is theft.
No it isn't, it's piracy. There are some basic differences.
>It raises the cost of software for those of us who
>don't steal.
Prove it. Show me some statistics. You will be unable to do this,
because nobody has ever been able to prove that piracy raises the cost
of software.
>It steals the work of many people.
If the person who pirates a program didn't intend to buy it anyway,
how is the software company losing anything? I don't see it.
>There's no excuse for it at all.
>To defend it is like defending rape. It only makes you look stupid.
False. It makes YOU look stupid to take a simplistic viewpoint that
"piracy is theft." It is a complex issue, and it will never be solved
without realizing this.
Locutus
ai...@gold.u-net.com (aidan) wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:17:48 GMT, ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman)
>wrote:
>
>>This is where things become non-traditional. If someone steals your
>>car for a joy-ride, you suffer a loss, but if they make a *copy* of
>>your car and drive off in that, you don't suffer a loss.
>
>claim there is a _loss_ in the case I cited is clearly stretching a
>point. It may not be right, but there isn't a loss to the software
>author because he wouldn't have sold that person a copy of his program
>anyway. And no, I don't believe Photoshop would be 50 dollars a time
>if we wiped out piracy tomorrow. Or even 100.
>
Correct - this is the same logic the cellular carriers and landline
phone companies use to justify the 'billions' lost to hackers each
year. They base the 'losses' on POTENTIAL revenue from system usage.
Never mind the 'little' fact that the usage never actually occurred.
A famous Bell South case had the company claiming 'millions' in losses.
As it turned out the information they lost was publicly available for
$79.00 from a unit in their own company.
It goes to show you any numbers put out by these companies should be
scrutinized a LOT more closely ! The methods used to inflate losses
would be thrown out by any competent auditor.
The piddly little onesy twosy user - most people on this group, is not
the problem. The problem are the operations that counterfeit/copy
1000's or ten of 1000's of software titles at a time, and sell them
overseas....
Jerry Flanders
schroe...@sni.de (W.F.Schroeder) wrote:
>Hello netlanders,
>while looking around on the web i came to this very interesting place:
>http://www.concentric.net/~n9zle/hc.html
><SNIP>
>Here you can download a small program REGHC which
> PATCHES THE SHAREWARE VERSION OF HAMCOMM 3.0 !!
><SNIP>
>Being the author of the HamComm software i have to say
>that i am not amused at all.
><SNIP>
>As a consequence of these unpleasant events i have decided that
>there will be
> NO SHAREWARWE VERSION AFTER HAMCOMM 3.1
>Any new features will only be available in the registered program.
>73 de Django
>DL5YEC
>Author of HamComm
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would be pissed by this also, Django.
I have seen guys throw together the little interface (per your design)
and sell the interface at hamfests at a ridiculously high price while
simultaneously "giving" a copy of your Hamcomm with it. Perhaps you
should re-write your license agreement to require a royalty payment
when it is packaged this way.
I don't use your program, but did play with one of the early
versions, and I was really impressed with its quality and usefulness.
I have recommended it to others trying to get started in the digital
modes. I don't know how much it has enriched you, but I am pretty sure
it has enriched Ham radio quite a bit.
I think if I were in your position, I would enjoy the challenge of
including code that the hacker thieves could not break. Also, by
including significant feature upgrades in new editions it should be
possible to stay ahead of the thieves.
Anyway, I hope you continue to contribute to the ham community as you
have in the past. I hope it will continue to be with shareware
versions of your product.
Jerry W4UK
Robert Casey
Re: ham shareware: I'm no software professional, that's sure.
Wrote a simple program to calculate dimensions for twinlead Jpole
antennas. It did little more than scale known working dimensions
to other frequencies. But I looked in an antenna book to verify
that this would work, and built test antennas. Did work.
Declared it public domain. Just happy to see it get used.
Software is not my living, though.
Jeffrey Herman
Stupid <my_email_addr@bottom_of_message.com> wrote:
>Bill Funk <skyp...@starlink.com>
>>Piracy is theft.
>No it isn't, it's piracy. There are some basic differences.
From my Oxford (ugh) dictionary - "Piracy 2. Infringement
of rights conferred by a patent or copyright (1771)."
>... It makes YOU look stupid to take a simplistic viewpoint that
>"piracy is theft." It is a complex issue, and it will never be solved
>without realizing this.
To the Oxford again: "Pirate v. 3. To appropriate or reproduce the work
or invention of another without authority, for one's own profit (1706)."
Gee, 1771 and 1706 - these are pretty old definitions.
Jeff KH2PZ
Dan Ferguson
Dave Burr <dtb...@mcs.com> wrote:
>T.L.Bryant wrote:
>
>>
>> What does this thread have to do with radio?
>>
>> Tom - N8ECW
>
>Tom:
>
>Because we have a bunch of thieves among us who actually use ham radio
>to facilitate software theft. You ever hear over the air: "Oh, you like
>that program? Why don't you send me a copy?".
>
>And we have further miserable SOB hams who rationalize the practice by
>saying "So what if we steal it? We're only hurting 'big business', who
>is always taking advantage of us pathetic, helpless little guys".
>
>So the thread is to raise awareness and save us from ourselves,
>hopefully setting a bit higher standard.
>
>Dave
>K9XK
Which still has nothing to do with the rec.radio.shortwave topic. But
while you're raising awareness, let me suggest another bit of
awareness that needs to be raised: Most shareware is worth exactly
what you paid for it BEFORE you registered it! For years I've watched
shareware "authors" whine and complain that there are lots of
downloads of their files, but almost no registrations. When I've
looked at the software written by the whiners it has become abundantly
clear that spending 32cents to mail in a registration would be
overpayment! Their "software" gets quickly deleted from my computer.
There are some exceptions, of course. But you won't hear or see the
authors of the exceptions whining. They're too busy driving to the
bank to deposit the registration fees.
df
*************************************************************
Dan Ferguson d...@mnsinc.com
Chris Smolinski
In article <5c87v5$r...@hpcvsnz.cv.hp.com>, c...@cv.hp.com (Ron Henderson) wrote:
> I asked Egghead about their policy. I wanted to try Microsoft's Streets
> Plus Version 5 (a $50 package) with my GPS. They said that as a
> authorized Microsoft retailier they were required by Microsoft to accept
> the return and refund the money if it was within the 30-day guarantee
> period. Streets 5 did not work with my GPS and after waiting for an
> answer to the problem from Microsoft for 3 weeks I gave up. Egghead
> took the product back without question and refunded my money.
As I recall, the Egghead store near me (now closed) had a shrink wrap
machine in the back. You can guess what happened to those returns...
Chris
--
Check out my web pages for radio (pirate, spy numbers) and Mac software.
http://www.access.digex.net/~cps
NOTICE: All email sent to this account is subject to public release.
Chuck Harrington
> False. It makes YOU look stupid to take a simplistic viewpoint that
> "piracy is theft." It is a complex issue, and it will never be solved
> without realizing this.
There is nothing complex about it; it is illegal, immoral and unethical!
Also, you should be able to discuss your view without calling someone
else stupid!
Richard MacDonald
>>It raises the cost of software for those of us who
>>don't steal.
>
>Prove it. Show me some statistics. You will be unable to do this,
>because nobody has ever been able to prove that piracy raises the cost
>of software.
>
use estimates of the number of pirated copies to determine the suggested list
price (or selling price) of their software.
>>It steals the work of many people.
>
>If the person who pirates a program didn't intend to buy it anyway,
>how is the software company losing anything? I don't see it.
>
If I steal the fruits of your labor (or just refuse to pay you for it) then
you are not losing anything if I never intended to pay you. Right? Also,
although it isn't completely comparable, if I drive off with your car (and
later return it) then there is no crime if I did not intend to buy or rent
it.
You don't need to respond to this since you obviously have no concept of
morality or ethics.
Dick MacDonald
dickmac@(delete this to reply)fastservice.com
The extra info is included to foil the automated collection 'bots.
Robert Smits
In message <32E639...@ipass.net> "David A. Cooley" <cool...@ipass.net> writes:
>aidan wrote:
>>
>>
>Stretch this a bit further and you are saying if the same poverty
>stricken student steals a Mercedes Benz, Mercedes didn't lose anything,
>as he never would have bought one anyway... Let him keep it...
>Theft is still theft. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. It
>doesn't mean it's OK to steal things you can't afford.
>
>
Isn't it a little more like the poverty stricken student makes a COPY of
the Mercedes Benz, and uses it? In your analogy, the owner of the
Mercedes would no longer be able to use the Mercedes - that IS theft. In
this case, however, Mercedes wouldn't be out a car or a sale.
I disagree with software piracy, but feel that the cost of the piracy is
often rather exaggerated by equating every illegal copy with a lost
sale. Many would never have been made at all at the regular price.
Jim Kehler
Dave Burr <dtb...@mcs.com> wrote:
>And we have further miserable SOB hams who rationalize the practice by
>saying "So what if we steal it? We're only hurting 'big business', who
>is always taking advantage of us pathetic, helpless little guys".
>So the thread is to raise awareness and save us from ourselves,
>hopefully setting a bit higher standard.
>Dave
>K9XK
That would be a first. Usenet helps us set a higher standard.......
73, Jim KH2D
Future
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997 11:27:26 -0600, Dave Burr <dtb...@mcs.com> wrote:
>T.L.Bryant wrote:
>
>>
>> What does this thread have to do with radio?
>>
>> Tom - N8ECW
>
>Tom:
>
>Because we have a bunch of thieves among us who actually use ham radio
>to facilitate software theft. You ever hear over the air: "Oh, you like
>that program? Why don't you send me a copy?".
>
>And we have further miserable SOB hams who rationalize the practice by
>saying "So what if we steal it? We're only hurting 'big business', who
>is always taking advantage of us pathetic, helpless little guys".
>
>So the thread is to raise awareness and save us from ourselves,
>hopefully setting a bit higher standard.
Actually, this thread is crossposted to REC.RADIO.SHORTWAVE, where
it's completely off-topic.
--
If you want to Email me, my address is "future at blarg dot net"
Chuck Harrington
Locutus wrote:
>
>
> The piddly little onesy twosy user - most people on this group, is not
> the problem. The problem are the operations that counterfeit/copy
> 1000's or ten of 1000's of software titles at a time, and sell them
> overseas....
Actually, I believe this thread got started by because someone was
pirating HAM SOFTWARE. This type of software does not have a market in
the "tens of 1000's" and the "onesy twosy" thefts hurt a lot more!
Bill Sohl
Chuck Harrington <pake...@gate.net> wrote:
>There is nothing complex about it; it (software piracy) is illegal, immoral and unethical!
Software piracy has several variations that are being claimed:
1. Outright copying of commercial software.
I agree that is illegal, immoral and unethical.
2. Use of shareware without paying.
That can certainly be viewed as immoral and unethical, BUT
there is nothing yet supported by any case law that indicates
it is illegal. Indeed, there are good legal arguments as to why
it isn't. They have been posted here before.
Bill Sohl (Amateur Radio Operator K2UNK)
Internet Instructor, Mount Olive (NJ) Community School
T.L.Bryant
In article <32ecac70...@news.blarg.net>, lo...@mysig.com says...
>
>On Fri, 24 Jan 1997 11:27:26 -0600, Dave Burr <dtb...@mcs.com> wrote:
>
>>T.L.Bryant wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What does this thread have to do with radio?
>>>
>>> Tom - N8ECW
>>
>>Tom:
>>
>>Because we have a bunch of thieves among us who actually use ham radio
>>to facilitate software theft. You ever hear over the air: "Oh, you like
>>that program? Why don't you send me a copy?".
>>
>>And we have further miserable SOB hams who rationalize the practice by
>>saying "So what if we steal it? We're only hurting 'big business', who
>>is always taking advantage of us pathetic, helpless little guys".
>>
>>So the thread is to raise awareness and save us from ourselves,
>>hopefully setting a bit higher standard.
>
>Actually, this thread is crossposted to REC.RADIO.SHORTWAVE, where
>it's completely off-topic.
Exactly. There are more appropriate newsgroups for discussing software piracy.
There are people whose "awareness" won't be raised about the illegalities and
ethics of piracy. I think they're quite aware. As long as a the government
takes a lackadaisical about enforcing software copyright laws, piracy will
thrive. I have yet to see them do anything to shut down the alt.warez
newsgroups.
Tom - N8ECW
Chris Smolinski
In article <32ea1b7d...@news.blarg.net>,
my_email_addr@bottom_of_message.com wrote:
> As long as we're on the topic of shareware... I would say that 99% of
> shareware authors neglect the quality aspect (yes, I mean 99%). In
> order to really make some money with shareware, your program has to be
> *TOP NOTCH*, that is, better than most commercial software. The
> reason being, of course, that people have a chance to try it before
> they buy it, whereas with commercial software they usually don't.
> Most REALLY outstanding shareware programs make a lot of money for
> their authors.
That's the problem with the ham/radio market - it's too small to really
justify putting in the work. I have written a bunch of radio related
programs all for the Mac (talk about a really small market, Macintosh ham
radio software!). Many of them (maybe even most) I wrote for myself,
because there was nothing else available. A few of the programs I've
released as demo copies, with a shareware fee required for the full version
(such as a logging program with the demo allowing a limited number of
entries), while the others I've released a fully functional version as
shareware (such as radio control programs).
I try to make the programs functional, to the point of doing what they
should, and not having bugs (or too many! ;-). In a limited market such as
this, that's all thats frankly possible. As others have said, shareware for
ham radio can only be done as a hobby, and a money losing one at that!
I have no doubt that shareware with a broad appeal can be very profitable
(I recall hearing about the author of White Knight, the first? terminal
program for the Mac. He knew he was on to something when his apartment was
littered with checks... I wish I had that problem!). But this isn't (and
probably never will be) the case with ham radio shareware.
Do I get all the shareware fees I should? Of course not, that's the nature
of the business. I get questions from people about using my software who
have never sent in the fee. The stats for my web page show many downloads
of programs every week. (Obviously only a small percentage of those are
probably in regular use, of course I understand that) I'm sure many other
shareware authors have the same problem. Will I continue to write
shareware? Of course, but I'll focus on writing software that serves my
needs, and only continue to improve existing software that is supported by
users.
Future
On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 10:50:03 -0500, Chuck Harrington
<pake...@gate.net> wrote:
>Future wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:16:33 -0700, Bill Funk <skyp...@starlink.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> False. It makes YOU look stupid to take a simplistic viewpoint that
>> "piracy is theft." It is a complex issue, and it will never be solved
>> without realizing this.
>
>
>There is nothing complex about it; it is illegal, immoral and unethical!
I never argued the legality of piracy; certainly it's illegal.
However, in most states in the U.S., sodomy is illegal, and so is
adultery. Morality and ethics are matters of opinion. One man's
morality is another man's immorality.
>Also, you should be able to discuss your view without calling someone
>else stupid!
I was responding to HIS accusation of stupidity. Also, I said it made
him LOOK stupid, not that he WAS stupid.